Customer Reviews

Attacking Faulty Reasoning: A Practical Guide to Fallacy-Free Arguments (Philosophy)

5 star:		(7)
4 star:		(6)
3 star:		(4)
2 star:		(3)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

This is one of the first texts on critical thinking to incorporate traditional logical fallacies in a unified theory of fallacies and arguments. Damer lists four criteria of a "good argument," then defines a "fallacy" as a violation of one or more of these criteria. He then groups all of the traditional fallacies by the criterion that they violate. Thus, the readers are not just learning a list of fallacies in an intellectual vaccuum; they are learning a holistic system that makes sense intuitively and logically, and will enable them not only to critique flawed arguments, but to construct logically sound arguments of their own.

Damer also includes "A Code of Conduct for Effective Rational Discussion," twelve principles for civilized, intelligent discussion of issues. These twelve principles include the four criteria of a good argument, thus connecting all the ideas of the book in one logical and easily understood structure. It's noteworthy that the author includes a discussion of ethics, and the "right" and "wrong" way to argue. He even has strategies on how to point out flawed arguments without being judgemental or intellectually condescending. Knowledge is power, after all, and intellectual might doesn't necessarily make right.

It's refreshing to see a critical thinking text acknowledge the ethical responsibility that comes with superior critical thinking skills. Damer takes this responsibility very seriously, and encourages readers to seek truth over victory. This is apparent in the Code of Conduct, which includes "The Fallibility Principle," "The Truth-Seeking Principle," and "The Principle of Charity."

The author includes numerous, excellent examples of the fallacies, taken from a wide variety of contexts. He also gives examples of three different methods for attacking fallacies: logical deconstruction, counterexamples, and absurd examples. The absurd example is a particularly powerful method which is easy to understand and effective with even the most subtle fallacies. Damer excels in demonstrating this method with many effective examples.

If you only buy one book on critical thinking, make it this one! This is the closest thing I've seen to a critical thinking "Bible," incorporating ethical principles, and a practical definition of a good argument, and wrapping it all up with the traditional fallacies in a sensible and intuitive logical structure.

Damer pulls off a next to impossible task-naming, describing, exampling, and attacking 60 fallacies while structuring them neatly within four criteria of a good argument: relevance, acceptability, sufficient grounds and rebuttal. The last chapter discusses the specifics of "A Code of Conduct for Effective Rational Discussion." I used this test as a key element of my Ph.D. research and continue to use it in my later work. This should be required study for every politician and philosopher. A simpler version should be required study for every middle school and high school student. Discovering what is true would be so much easier with good arguments absence of fallacy. Be the first to rid your "neighborhood" of polemics. Study this book.

Although I gathered that this book was written primarily as a text for logic and critical thinking courses, it helped me immensely in terms of learning how to make sense of argumentative quality in everyday life, not only the classroom. I did not read this book for a class as I have graduated college, but I found it to be a real help in determining the strengths and weaknesses in arguments and other forms of persuasive speech that we encounter daily.
The book uses clear and familiar everyday examples to make the points, instead of presenting things in an abstract and think-tank way, and most people will find themselves realizing that they have had arguments or debates exactly like those described in the book. The book clearly demonstrates how much reason and critical thinking can be diminished or overlooked by laziness or unwillingness on the part of people to care enough to think well.
The chapters follow a clear course and almost every logical fallacy I have ever encountered in the classroom or the real world is covered in the book. It explains the fallacy, gives examples, and shows how to expose the fallacy for being a poor argument, as well as demonstrating ways to combat and point out to the other person (in a nice way) the flaw in the reasoning. The tone of the book is pleasently informal, as it attempts to create familiar dialouge and situations to which the reader can easily identify. I highly reccommend the book and think that anyone who cares enough to want to think more maturely would benefit greatly.

I like the *idea* of this book - the book it *could* be, if you will - very much. But actually using it to teach a critical thinking course last year revealed serious flaws.

According to the ad copy and the first chapter or so, the overall goal is to present a coherent theory of argumentation, and of fallacies as failures to meet the obligations that theory imposes. A good argument has feature X, while a deviation from X is a type of fallacy, basically. This is a good idea for a way to structure a critical thinking textbook, and particularly for a way to work the fallacies into it so that they don't feel like an afterthought. Another feature I liked was the incorporation of that theory of argument into a larger theory of argumentative *conduct*, where we have obligations, not just to do our best to make our arguments as good as possible, but to be charitable and fair-minded toward our opponents as well. This is a point that needs to be stressed in any CT course and it's very good that Damer makes sure to do so at the outset.

However, the book has a number of serious flaws. For one thing, the "theory" of argumentation it's supposedly built around really isn't. The theory is little more than a list of five features a good argument should have (except when it doesn't; the Structural criterion doesn't apply to all arguments, at least not in a uniform way). Actually, more like eight features or so, since some of his five criteria are themselves bundles of distinct, only loosely related concepts. The reader expecting Damer to tie these features together in some way - to tell us what it is they have in common that allows them to play this role - is going to be disappointed; there is no serious, non-circular attempt to do this. Perhaps the average first-year student using this as a textbook wouldn't notice this, or wouldn't care, but it made teaching this book far less satisfying than I had hoped.

I wish to discuss three other notable flaws, each arguably less deep, but more pedagogically significant. First of all, many of the examples - both of types of fallacy, and of specific (supposed) instances of fallacies - simply aren't arguments, fallacious or otherwise. Not every instance of ambiguity, rationalization, misuse of a principle or wishful thinking involves an argument, but Damer sometimes uses a very large and unwieldy sledgehammer to make them look as though they do Similarly, several of Damer's specific examples, such as the landlord on page 200, refer to things as arguments that simply aren't (in this case the landlord's "argument" is better described as an explanation). In teaching a critical thinking class, it is of the first importance that students learn to distinguish between arguments and other bits of language, especially explanations, that are not arguments. Stronger students will understand the distinction intuitively but I found many of my students last year to be very ill-served by Damer in this regard. When I switched to Govier this past summer, the proportion of my students who consistently had problems distinguishing arguments from explanations dropped - I kid you not - from about 50% to *ZERO*.

Another very serious problem concerns Damer's explanation of Aristotelean categorical logic. Traditionally, the I statement ("Some S are P") is defined as meaning that at least one S is also a P, and similarly the O statement ("Some S are not P") as "At least one S is not a P". Damer, on the other hand, defines the I statement as meaning at least one S is a P *but not all of them are*, and similarly for the O statement. But then the I statement means "there's at least one S that's a P, and at least one that isn't" and so does the O statement; therefore, by Damer's definitions, the two are exactly equivalent! But Damer goes on to explain the traditional logical properties of the two, which are quite different, blissfully unaware that he's erased the distinction between them. As anyone who knows this material will quickly realize, this implies many logical absurdities, such as that "All S are P" and "No S are P" are equivalent (the "proof" of this, using the traditional rules of immediate inference plus Damer's inadvertent equation of the I and O statements, is very easy and left as an exercise for the reader). Getting something like this wrong is a recipe for confusing, not helping, the thinking of one's students.

The final problem I will mention lies with the title and emphasis of the book. Despite starting on the right foot, with an emphasis on mutual respect and intellectual honesty, the fact that most of the book is devoted to fallacies, combined with the title, creates an undesirable emphasis on finding fault with one's opponents rather than searching for common ground. Damer warns against this approach several times, but those warnings fly in the face of the message the title and overall contents of the book send. The current state of public discourse demands that books like this do all they can to discourage this approach, but instead Damer, at best, sends mixed messages on this point.

Add to this the problems with some of the examples that even the positive reviews acknowledge and you have a textbook that lays claim to some admirable ambitions, but doesn't live up to them and has some serious problems from a pedagogical standpoint into the bargain. Factor in its expense and you can do a very great deal better. As mentioned above, I switched to Trudy Govier's outstanding, albeit even pricier, A Practical Study of Argument, and got much better results in every way. For one thing, though Govier doesn't trumpet the fact the way Damer does, she is at least as successful as Damer (not that that's setting the bar very high) in building a genuine *system* of informal logic - and isn't that supposed to be Damer's main selling point?

I found this to be a great text with very clear description of creating a good argument. However, I want to warn potential buyers that the copy I received was a truncated, abridged version of the original text. This version only has chapters 1-6 and the introduction. It is missing some of the vital "fallacies" that appear at the end of the book and also the additional appendices for "attacking faulty reasoning." It is the "Riverside Community College" edition of the original text, so be forewarned.

That about sums it up. I have read MANY books on informal logic and critical thinking, but this one is by far the most clearly written and accessible.

I particularly liked the author's focus on WHY fallacies are bad instead of just rattling them off.

This is a book I can recommend to anyone, even the old veterans of argumentation.

This book is readable and thorough, and probably the best introduction to critical thinking around.

With such a large number of fallacies demanding multiple examples, the author must be forgiven if some of them seem a little off the mark, even while being technically correct. For example, the proposition (I'm paraphrasing) "Our baseball team was 1 and 11 this year, but with a new coach we'll do better next year." is in fact false. However, if the proposition were that "we'll probably do better" it would be true, because the probability is that we would get an average coach and an average coach has a record of 0.500, while assuming that coaching has a positive effect. Another example has former Predident Bush answering the question, "Did Dan Quayle's parents help him get into the national guard?" with words to the effect that "At least he served patrioticly and didn't run to Canada or burn the flag." The answer while technically irrelevant is a politician's way of saying, "Whether his parents helped or not is unimportant, at least ...blah, blah." Such an answer invites a rejoinder along the lines of "It really is important, because ..." The fault of the example is that it implies it is OK to rest on the technicalities even when you have a very good idea of what your opponent is really saying.

So if some of the example are a little off-base, perhaps that is all to the good as a learning experience. The small bits of uneasiness are left to the student as an exercise to resolve. The author provides the tools for doing so.

T.Edward Damer's book explains the specific fallacies people use to convince us of a claim.These claims are fallacious because they violate one of four criterion. The four criteria are separated into their own chapter.This allows for a clear vision of why the claim is unreaonable. I highly recommend reading this book if you want to improve your skills in what you should believe.It may madden you to see how our elected officials use these techniques to hoodwink us. What this book can not do,despite Mr. Damer's belief,is enlighten an unreasonable person. We too often encounter those who only see what they believe,not believe whay they see.

As a college logic teacher, I recommend this book. I divide my course into two major areas: formal and informal. Damer's book is perfect for the informal section. I find students are weary after learning about syllogisms (and "Barbara Celarent"). Informal arguments are much more common, and this book addresses 60 of the most common errors. The book is suitably brief for class use, with plenty of exercises to reinforce the detection and correction of the errors. After reading this book, watching political debates will never be the same!

Damer makes logic logical without the confusion of logical and pseudo mathamatical symbols. A great handbook with many examples. Damer also provides common sense advice to real word dialogue. A good subtitle might be: How to discover truth and keep your friends